It is repeatedly claimed that the dumping

Answer choices

1. A

   Opposite8% picked this

   Evacuation plans in the event of an accident could not be guaranteed to work perfectly except where

   This actually supports the author. If evacuation plans only work where population is small, that is itself a safety-related reason to choose sparsely populated areas — which means officials are picking those areas because they have safety concerns. The argument is reinforced, not weakened.

   8%
2. B

   Opposite9% picked this

   In the event of an accident, it is certain that fewer people would be harmed in a sparsely populated than

   This is also a safety-related reason. If accidents would harm fewer people in sparsely populated areas, then officials are choosing those areas to limit the human cost of any accident — a safety motivation. The author's conclusion that they have safety misgivings would be supported, not weakened.

   9%
3. C

   Correct70% picked this

   Dumping of nuclear waste poses fewer economic and bureaucratic problems in sparsely populated than in

   Why this is right

   Here is the alternative explanation. If sparsely populated areas pose fewer economic and bureaucratic problems, then officials may be choosing them for purely practical reasons — not because they have any doubts about safety. The author's inference (location choice = safety doubts) collapses, because the location choice can be fully explained by reasons that have nothing to do with safety.

   Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   70%
4. D

   No Impact5% picked this

   There are dangers associated with chemical waste, and it, too, is dumped away from areas

   What happens with chemical waste does not establish why nuclear waste is sited where it is. Even if chemical waste is also dumped away from populated areas for safety reasons, that does not give us a reason to think nuclear officials are not similarly concerned. This neither breaks the author's inference nor offers an alternative.

   5%
5. E

   Opposite9% picked this

   Until there is no shred of doubt that nuclear dumps are safe, it makes sense to situate them where they pose the

   This is essentially a normative restatement of the author's position: it makes sense to be cautious until we are sure. If anything, this supports the idea that officials reasonably have safety misgivings — exactly the conclusion the author drew. It does not weaken the argument.

   9%